Tom Trento interviews Anjem Choudary, Muslim Activist

Published on Oct 30, 2014 by theunitedwest

If you have ever wondered why anyone could support the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS) then this is a MUST SEE interview. Moreover, you could not find two people who disagree more about life and beliefs than Tom Trento and Anjem Choudary – one who has been labeled an “Islamophobe” and the other labeled an “Islamic Terrorist.” Ironically, these two activists fundamentally agree about the nature of Islam – in its historic essence, political structure and theocratic basis. In this fascinating exchange you will see Tom and Anjem agree on quite a bit, but offer radically different interpretations and conclusions about Islam. This interview is a deep and thought provoking look into the mind of a Muslim – a Muslim who is a fierce proponent of Shariah (Islamic Law) and the methods and tactics of the Islamic State.

The Danger of Islamist Terrorists in Libya

libya2By Michael Curtis:

Libya, with its oil wealth and natural resources, could be an affluent and successful country. Instead, it is today a dangerous place and a chaotic society with continual fighting among Islamist terrorists, Arab nationalists, and a host of regional militias. The Obama administration and all democratic governments are now confronted by an increasingly troublesome issue, the growing influence of Islamist terrorism in Libya, Nigeria, and other countries in North Africa.

The terrorist groups, individually and in alliance, have taken advantage of the vacuum of central power and the mixture of rival tribal and regional groups and feuding political organizations in Libya. They control many of the large cities and much of the territory of the country, and are challenging the oilfields. Their tactics and ideology follow those of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, to which many claim allegiance.

It is commendable that the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi is planning as George Orwell once wrote to report on true facts and “not to feel obligated to fabricate imaginary facts and feelings.” At last, we will have the final definitive account of what happened before, during, and after the two attacks on September 11, 2012 by Islamist terrorists. The first on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, and the second, a few hours later, on another compound killed two American CIA contractors and injured ten others.

The forthcoming report will remind the country that the attacks were carried out by organized terrorist groups, and not the result of supposed mass outrage over a video that inflamed passions, as members of the Obama administration suggested. We already know that Ahmed Abu Khattala, the alleged ringleader of the main terrorist group, Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, is being held in the U.S. on an 18-count indictment and multiple charges of murder. The group led the attack with assault rifles, grenades, and other weapons, and plundered sensitive U.S. information.

The Congressional inquiry should lead to further understanding of the dramatic increase of Islamist terrorism in North Africa. This is now a threat not only to neighboring countries in Africa but also to the whole world. Since the popular Libyan uprising in 2011, that followed the April Spring uprisings in Tunis and Egypt in February 2011, and the capture and death in October 2011 of the eccentric dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who had ruled Libya for 42 years, the country has been in chaos. Gaddafi’s bizarre political system, named in 1977 “Jamahiriya” or “state of the masses”, and run through “revolutionary committees”, was transformed into a republic that did not bring stability and security.

Today, that republic contains not only countless Islamist militia groups but also different political authorities, two governments and two parliaments, the General National Congress and a national parliament. The GNC, that has chosen Omar al-Hasi as prime minister, is dominated by Islamists who belong to a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Libyan party.

The official parliament composed of liberals and federalists, and the elected government and the Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni, recognized internationally, has been forced to move to Bayda in east Libya. The commander of the Libyan army, General Khalifa Haftar, is conducting a campaign against Islamists. To counter their forces, General Haftar started “Operation Dignity,” an air and ground assault against the terrorist groups in Benghazi.  It attacked Islamist bases held by Ansar al-Sharia, the Raf Allah al-Sahati Brigade, and the 17 February Martyrs Brigade.

Read more at American Thinker

The Coming Détente with Iran

Ben Rhodes / AP

Ben Rhodes / AP

By Matthew Continetti:

Deputy National Security Adviser and MFA in creative writing Ben Rhodes likened an Iranian nuclear deal to Obamacare in a talk to progressive activists last January, according to audio obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The remarks, made at a since-discontinued regular meeting of White House personnel and representatives of liberal interest groups, reveal the importance of a rapprochement with Iran to President Obama, who is looking to establish his legacy as his presidency enters its lame-duck phase.

 

“Bottom line is, this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically, certainly since President Obama came to office, and probably since the beginning of the Iraq war,” Rhodes said. “So no small opportunity, it’s a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.”

Rhodes made the comparison as the White House was reeling from the botched rollout of the $2 billion Healthcare.gov. Polls continue to show that the health law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, remains unpopular.

Rhodes also said the White House wants to avoid congressional scrutiny of any deal.

“We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away,” Rhodes said. “And there are ways to do that.”

That is similar to what an unnamed senior administration official told David Sanger of the New York Times last week for a piece headlined “Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress”: “We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz denied the Times story. But it is not as though the Obama White House has fallen out of love with executive action.

The interim deal with Iran struck in November 2013, in which the administration traded sanctions relief worth billions of dollars for promises to limit nuclear fuel production, was extended in July and is now scheduled to lapse on November 24.

“I’m not going to give it odds,” Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday of the chances of a final deal. “As I said to the president, I’m not going to express optimism, I’m going to express hope.”

And I am going to express fear. Fear that the chances of some sort of dangerous and misguided détente with Iran are high, and that they increase if Republicans capture the Senate and improve their majority in the House. Fear that the worse things get for Obama at home, the better the odds that he will hand the keys of the Middle East to Ayatollah Khamenei.

Read more at Washington Free Beacon

Military Hates White House ‘Micromanagement’ of ISIS War

Alex Wong/Getty

Alex Wong/Getty

By Eli Lake and Josh Rogin:

The Pentagon brass placed in charge of implementing Obama’s war against ISIS are getting fed up with the short leash the White House put them on.
Top military leaders in the Pentagon and in the field are growing increasingly frustrated by the tight constraints the White House has placed on the plans to fight ISIS and train a new Syrian rebel army.As the American-led battle against ISIS stretches into its fourth month, the generals and Pentagon officials leading the air campaign and preparing to train Syrian rebels are working under strict White House orders to keep the war contained within policy limits. The National Security Council has given precise instructions on which rebels can be engaged, who can be trained, and what exactly those fighters will do when they return to Syria. Most of the rebels to be trained by the U.S. will never be sent to fight against ISIS.Making matters worse, military officers and civilian Pentagon leaders tell The Daily Beast, is the ISIS war’s decision-making process, run by National Security Adviser Susan Rice. It’s been manic and obsessed with the tiniest of details. Officials talk of sudden and frequent meetings of the National Security Council and the so-called Principals Committee of top defense, intelligence, and foreign policy officials (an NSC and three PCs in one week this month); a barrage of questions from the NSC to the agencies that create mountains of paperwork for overworked staffers; and NSC insistence on deciding minor issues even at the operational level.

“We are getting a lot of micromanagement from the White House. Basic decisions that should take hours are taking days sometimes,” one senior defense official told The Daily Beast.

Other gripes among the top Pentagon and military brass are about the White House’s decision not to work with what’s left of the existing Syrian moderate opposition on the ground, which prevents intelligence sharing on fighting ISIS and prevents the military from using trained fighters to build the new rebel army that President Obama has said is needed to push Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into a political negotiation to end the conflict.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel himself is among the critics of Obama’s strategy in Syria. Hagel wrote a memo last week to Rice warning that Obama’s Syria strategy was unclear about U.S. intentions with respect to Assad, undermining the plan.

Read more at The Daily Beast

Also see:

MESA and IIIT: Islamists Infiltrating Academia

MESA-logoBy Cinnamon Stillwell:

The field of Middle East studies has a troublesome penchant for partnering with Islamist organizations. Case in point: The 2014 annual conference of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) will host an International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) reception at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC on November 23.

The true nature of IIIT, a Virginia-based think tank, was revealed during the 2007 U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, which unearthed a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum naming IIIT as one of the likeminded organizations in the U.S dedicated to a “grand jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” so that “God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” Middle East studies professors have long shared the podium with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), another Islamist outfit linked by the United States government to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As far back as 1988, an FBI investigation exposed IIIT’s goal to “get inside . . .  American universities” for the larger purpose of instituting “the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” Clearly, IIIT is making headway. Consider the following:

IIIT has on ongoing relationship with Hartford Seminary, including a $1 million donation in 2013 to endow a faculty chair in Islamic chaplaincy. According to one M.A. graduate, its Islamic studies program has been “an institution promoting Islamization” for the better part of a decade. Ingrid Mattson, the previous director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Harford, is also former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

In 2011, IIIT contributed approximately half of a $2 million endowment for a new chair in Islamic studies at Huron University College in Ontario, Canada. Soon after, Ingrid Mattson was appointed as the first London and Windsor Community Chair in Islamic Studies at its Faculty of Theology.

IIIT donated $1.5 million to George Mason University in 2008 to establish an endowed chair in Islamic studies at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

In 2008, Temple University declined a $1.5 million gift from IIIT to endow a chair in Islamic studies, citing ongoing federal investigation of IIIT’s possible involvement in funding for Palestinian terrorists. Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, a cofounder and former president of the IIIT, had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sami al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor and North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). IIIT was the primary funder of Al-Arian’s think tank and PIJ front, the World and Islam Studies Enterprise.

Read more at American Thinker

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Brookings Scholars Hawk Qatar’s Hamas Talking Points

Part 4 of a 4-Part Investigative Series: Brookings Sells Soul to Qatar’s Terror Agenda

by Steven Emerson, John Rossomando and Dave Yonkman
IPT News
October 31, 2014

1082Since the beginning of Brookings’ relationship with Qatar in 2002, its scholars have increasingly advocated that U.S. policymakers open a direct channel to Hamas – a position in keeping with Qatar’s foreign policy.

Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, a member of the Qatari royal family who chairs the Brooking Doha Center (BDC)’s advisory council, made Qatar’s position clear, according to a quote found in a secret December 2005 cable written by then-Ambassador Chase Untermeyer, on the eve of the January 2006 Palestinian elections.

“We shouldn’t exclude Hamas. It makes Hamas look like the real Palestinians. To isolate them is to repeat mistakes made in many places,” the cable released by Wikileaks said.

In recent years, Qatar’s leadership has emerged as one of Hamas’s biggest financial and political backers.

Other State Department cables disclosed by Wikileaks quoted Brookings’ patron, and former Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani‘s wife, describing her husband as “a big friend of Hamas.”

Qatar pledged $50 million to support Hamas in 2006, and the former emir pledged another $400 million to Hamas’ cash-strapped government in Gaza during an October 2012 state visit. Its funding of Hamas continues despite the accession of Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to the Qatari throne following his father’s abdication last year. Current Prime Minister Abdullah bin Naser bin Khalifa Al Thani announced in June that Qatar would give Hamas $60 million to pay salaries of the terror group’s public servants. Earlier this month, Qatar pledged $1 billion to help rebuild Gaza after Hamas provoked a war with Israel by firing rockets at civilian communities. No strings were attached to the pledge.

Furthermore, the Qatari government also has frustrated American efforts to isolate Hamas.

Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal lived in Qatar from 1999 until 2001 following his expulsion from Jordan. Meshaal told Al-Hayat in 2003 that Al Thani assisted his 1999 entry into Qatar and that he had maintained a “personal relationship” with the then-Qatari foreign minister.

Meshaal moved back to Qatar in February 2012 after the start of Syria’s civil war.

Israel’s United Nations Ambassador Ron Prosor pointed his finger at Qatar in anAugust New York Times op-ed, blaming the Gulf state for every rocket and tunnel aimed at Israel, saying they were “made possible through a kind donation from the emir of Qatar.” Prosor described Qatar as a “Club Med for terrorists” for harboringMeshaal, influential Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdul Rahman Omeir al-Naimi, a Qatari history professor the U.S. Treasury Department designatedlast year as an al-Qaida financier.

Qatari technology allegedly helped Hamas build sophisticated cyber systems in tunnels and above ground to attack Israel. Nearly 70 percent of cyber-attacks against Israel during this summer’s Gaza war originated from Qatari-associated IP addresses. Sensors provided by the Gulf state in Hamas tunnels alerted the terrorists to approaching Israeli soldiers, and Qatari cloud-based software enabled Hamas to remotely fire its rockets, the Times of Israel reported.

Brookings portrays Qatar’s relations with Hamas in a positive light, setting the country up as a mediator between the terrorist group and Israel.

Barakat suggested that “Western powers might find themselves having to look for help from a different partner: Qatar,” Barakat wrote, giving a nod to the BDC’s sponsoring country. “Under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt has proven more adept at securing the backing of politicians and diplomats in Tel Aviv, Washington and New York for a peace initiative than it has at reaching out to Palestinians.”

Despite Barakat’s concerns, Egypt ultimately brokered the August agreement that ended the latest round of Hamas’ fighting with Israel.

Reports in the Arabic press indicate that Qatar had threatened to expel Meshaal from the country if he agreed to Egypt’s cease-fire terms in July.

Spreading disinformation about Hamas

Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr’s sentiments can also be found in the body of work of numerous Brookings scholars who argue that Hamas is willing to disarm or recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Numerous articles lend Brookings’ credibility to the false notion that Hamas’s 1988 charter calling for Palestinian Muslims to fight Israel “until liberation is achieved” no longer has relevance or to the notion that Hamas wants peaceful coexistence with Israel. Consequently, they argue that the U.S. should talk directly with Hamas.

Read more

Qatar Awareness Campaign: Letter to President Obama #StopQatarNow

qatar_awareness_campaign_logoPresident Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition. The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of one of America’s closest allies under your administration, the State of Qatar. Not only is Qatar a state sponsor of terror which has funded Hamas, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State, but it is increasingly apparent that Qatar is a significant factor in the United States’ diplomatic rift with Israel, and finances the genocidal Islamic State.

Qatar was the primary sponsor of the Arab Spring, which saw its guests, the Muslim Brotherhood, assume power in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Each of these countries subsequently descended into chaos, sectarian and religious violence, and Islamic autocracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, the same group from which sprouted Al Qaeda and ISIS, has created a veritable security, diplomatic, and humanitarian crisis in North Africa and the Middle East that threatens world peace.

Diplomatically, the United States’ relationship with Israel has never been more strained. Our relationship with Egypt, which was formerly the lynchpin in America’s diplomatic standing in the Arab world, has crumbled. King Abdullah of Jordan, whose country has been a steadfast and reliable ally in combating Islamic extremism for decades, has said publicly that he does not trust your government. Even Saudi Arabia, which has been an American ally since the 1930s, is exasperated and has publicly put distance between itself and the American government.

The net result of your administration’s policy of supporting the Qataris and the Muslim Brotherhood is simply this: an expansion of Russia’s sphere of influence across the region. Yet the seismic geopolitical shift which is the likely fallout of the Arab Spring, namely, the realignment of several former American allies with Russia, is, incredibly, not the biggest story in this first class debacle.

There is an ongoing genocide across the Middle East against Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, and other religious and ethnic minorities. The tactics being employed each and every day by the Islamic State are reminiscent of the Nazi Holocaust. This is no accident; in fact, it is consistent with history. The original horrific event that gave the world the terrible word “genocide,” or murder of a people, came from the Armenian genocide, perpetuated by the Ottoman Empire. The primary victims of this genocide were Armenian Christians, but many others who were on the wrong side of the world’s last official Caliphate paid with their lives as well. Mass shootings, mass drownings, mass starvations, and other devilish acts marked this dark period in modern history.

A key participant in both the Armenian genocide, as well as the Holocaust, was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al Husseini. He was also the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine: the same group that Qatar hosts as honored guests in Doha today.

We are witnessing a repeat of history in the worst imaginable way. In these momentous times, what is lacking the most is truth. The terrible truth is that United States government under your leadership has been on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Arab Spring, and through the period of Islamist genocide in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and across several other countries. There is no other logical or reasonable way to interpret recent history.

In this so-called Arab Spring, Qatar and the United States have been partners in crime.

There are other atrocities to be attributed to Qatar, including their penchant for slave labor. It is estimated that nearly 4,000 migrant workers will die constructing the stadiums for the 2022 FIFA World Cup, scheduled to be played in Doha. Not only slave labor, but sex slavery deserves to be mentioned: for Boko Haram was created by a Qatari proxy, set up as a money making venture. The individual who provided the funds now resides in Doha. In order to #BringBackOurGirls, #StopQatarNow.

Moreover, Qatar it is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell. The National Logistics Cell of Pakistan is currently a NATO subcontractor. With a stroke of your pen, this can change tomorrow.

Finally, Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition and petitioners ask that you consider the attachedsourced report on Qatar’s activities. The links cited are vetted and credible sources. We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.

Mr. President, this letter of course tells you nothing you do not already know. You are privileged to the listen to the intelligence collected by multiple world class agencies, whose capabilities are second-to-none.

Still, the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition implores you to examine the Qatari record on human rights, genocide, slavery, and narcotics. It behooves a great nation to choose their primary allies carefully.

After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to cut all diplomatic, economic, and political ties with Qatar; remove all American military personnel from Doha; and freeze all Qatari connected assets around the globe until the reigning, duplicitous Al-Thanis step down and surrender to a court of justice!

Sincerely,

Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)
AllenBWest.com

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs

Walid Shoebat
Shoebat.com

Charles Ortel
Washington Times

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

** Select signatures as of 9/27. The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.

US Envoy: To defeat the Islamic State, we must “tell the story of how we celebrate Islam”

Allen-and-Kuwaiti-emir-300x213Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer:

General Allen was the commander in Afghanistan who issued an abject and embarrassing video apology to “the noble people of Afghanistan” for the alleged desecration of a Qur’an at a U.S. air base. Here he is assuming what all Western leaders assume: that the Islamic State is perverting the true teachings of Islam, and that these Muslim leaders will be eager to show that to be the case. But it is increasingly clear to everyone that this is just whistling in the dark: even the Guardian sees through it. “US Envoy: To Defeat ISIS, We Must Highlight ‘Our Profound Respect’ for Islam,” by Patrick Goodenough, CNS News, October 29, 2014 (thanks to Lookmann):

(CNSNews.com) – A global effort to counter claims by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) that it is acting in the name of Islam must include a counter-narrative that highlights “our profound respect” for the religion, the administration’s point man in the anti-ISIS coalition said this week.Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Allen was speaking in Kuwait, where representatives of more than a dozen Islamic and Western met to discuss using public communications to combat ISIS (also known as Da’esh – an acronym for the Arabic rendering of the group’s name, ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah fil-Iraq wa ash-Sham).

“As we seek to expose Da’esh’s true nature,” Allen told the gathering on Monday, “we must also tell a positive story, one that highlights our respect – our profound respect for Islam’s proud traditions, its rich history, and celebration of scholarship and family and community.”

“We must work with clerics and scholars and teachers and parents to tell the story of how we celebrate Islam, even as we show that Da’esh perverts it.”

The conference in Kuwait City brought together officials from leading Arab states, Turkey, France, Britain and the U.S. to discuss ways their governments are working to counter ISIS’ message.

The jihadist group, which controls large parts of Syria and Iraq and has declared a “caliphate” in those areas, runs a dynamic propaganda and recruitment operation, including a full-color online magazine, video clips, and an active social media presence.

The Qur’an and other Islamic texts, along with viewpoints of historical and modern-day Muslim scholars, are central to its messaging, and the U.S.-led coalition is prioritizing attempts to counter the purported religious justifications for its actions.

Allen said that ISIS propaganda serves both to attract recruits and “perverts the innocent.”

“It is only when we contest Da’esh’s presence online and deny the legitimacy of its message – the message that it sends to vulnerable young people – and as we expose Da’esh for the un-Islamic, criminal cult of violence that it really is, it is only then that Da’esh will be truly defeated.”

He said every member of the coalition had a role to play in combating the image ISIS portrays of itself.

“Da’esh’s online messengers present themselves as the true and victorious representatives of Islam. They seek to portray themselves as winners, true leaders worthy of financial support that attracts and radicalizes foreign fighters,” he said.

“I believe every coalition partner, every one, has a unique and a vital role to play in striking down this image – this image within the context of our respective cultural, religious, and national norms.”

Allen noted that leading religious figures in the region have spoken out against ISIS on religious grounds.

Last August, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia declared that ISIS’ ideas and violent conduct made it “enemy number one of Islam.” The same month, Egypt’s grand mufti launched an Internet-based campaign to discredit ISIS, and urged media to stop using any name for the group that incorporates the word “Islamic.”

More than 120 Islamic figures last month signed a letter to ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – who calls himself “Caliph Ibrahim” and has called on jihadists everywhere to swear loyalty to him – challenging him on religious grounds….

And that challenge was as hypocritical as it was revealing.

Islam’s ‘Good Cop/Bad Cop’ Routine

The “other face” of the Muslim Brotherhood

The “other face” of the Muslim Brotherhood

PJ MediaBy Raymond Ibrahim:

Yet one more piece of evidence tying the United States to the Islamic State recently came to light. In a new video interview, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most authoritative clerics in the Muslim community who has his own program on Al Jazeera and is chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, asserted that the leader of the head-chopping, infidel-crucifying Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was once a member of the Brotherhood, which the U.S. government, especially the Obama administration, has been allied with.

Indicators of a U.S./Brotherhood alliance are too many to list here and have been on open display from people like Hillary Clinton, former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson, and Sen. John McCain (who may have taken pictures not only with known Islamic terrorists, but with al-Baghdadi himself).

According to Sheikh Qaradawi, “this youth [al-Baghdadi] was from the start among the top ranks of the Brotherhood, but he was inclined to [positions of] leadership and so forth… Then, after he spent years in prison [for Brotherhood activities] he came out and joined with them [nascent Islamic State],” eventually rising to be its “caliph.”

Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments (Awqaf), Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Gom‘a said that “Qaradawi’s confession [concerning al-Baghdadi] confirms that the Brotherhood is the spiritual father to every extremist group.”

Even so, Qaradawi’s revelation was not meant to cast aspersions on the Brotherhood, especially as he is one of its spiritual fathers. More likely he was invoking the idea that imprisoning and suppressing “moderate Islamists,” namely the Muslim Brotherhood—most recently in Egypt’s last revolution—only leads to their “radicalization” and turn to violence.

This is a widely accepted meme, especially in the West. Al-Qaeda’s Ayman Zawahiri is another former Brotherhood member who is regularly portrayed as turning to “radicalism” and jihad after being imprisoned in Egypt in 1981—though any evaluation of the facts of his life demonstrate that he was a “radical” well before he was incarcerated, that he was imprisoned precisely because he was radical.

The idea that it is best to cooperate and ally with the “moderate” and “nonviolent” Muslim Brotherhood lest, aggrieved, it turns to “extremism, radicalism, and terrorism” has been swallowed by many Western academics and politicians hook line and sinker.

To understand this phenomenon, one need only turn to the “good cop, bad cop” routine and see how it captures U.S. behavior towards “moderate/nonviolent Islamists” (“good cops”) on the one hand, and “radical/violent Islamists” (“bad cops”) on the other.

According to the CIA Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual (as cited in the book Social Protest in Contemporary China, 2003-2010),

Good cop/bad cop, also called joint questioning and friend and foe, is a psychological tactic used for interrogation. “Good cop/bad cop” tactics involves a team of two interrogators who take apparently opposing approaches to the subject. The interrogators may interview the subject alternately or may confront the subject at the same time. The “bad cop” takes an aggressive, negative stance toward the subject, making blatant accusations, derogatory comments, threats, and in general creating antipathy between the subject and himself. This sets the stage for the “good cop” to act sympathetically, appearing supportive, understanding, in general showing sympathy for the subject. The good cop will also defend the subject from the bad cop. The subject may feel he can cooperate with the good cop out of trust or fear of the bad cop. He may then seek protection by and trust the good cop and provide the information the interrogators are seeking.

Consider how this definition applies to the U.S. government’s approach to the supposed Islamist dichotomy of “violence” and “nonviolence.”

The violent jihad—whether under the rubric of “al-Qaeda,” “Islamic State,” etc.—like the “bad cop” “takes an aggressive, negative stance towards the subject [U.S./“infidels”], making blatant accusations, derogatory comments, threats, and in general creating antipathy between the subject and himself.”

Thus the violent jihadis become the “feared enemies” who cannot be reasoned with.

This of course sets the stage for the “good cops,” the purportedly nonviolent Islamists, namely, the Muslim Brotherhood, to step in

appearing supportive, understanding, in general showing sympathy for the subject. The good cop [“moderate” Brotherhood] will also defend the subject [U.S. interests] from the bad cop [Islamic jihadis]. The subject [U.S.] may feel he can cooperate with the good cop [“moderates”] out of trust, or fear of the bad cop [terrorists].

This in fact is the idea long spearheaded by Mideast academics and talking heads—that there are “nonviolent” Islamists and “violent” Islamists, and that the best way to weaken the appeal of the latter is to cooperate with the former, which, after all, shouldn’t be too hard, since the “good cop moderates” come in suits, smile, and shake hands over cups of coffee.

For instance, CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein, an Obama advisor, argues in his book, Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), that “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists.” Aboul-Enein, like many before and after him, argues that U.S. leadership should work with the nonviolent Islamists in order to weaken the appeal of the militants.

And yet, just as the “good cop/bad cop” is a false dichotomy in that the both “cops” are working together and for the same goal, so too is the “nonviolent Islamist/violent Islamist” a false dichotomy in that both groups of Islamists are working together and for the same goal—the resurrection of a Sharia-enforcing caliphate, which the Islamic State (“violent Islamist”), led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a former Muslim Brotherhood member (“nonviolent Islamist”), recently accomplished.

U.S. Brotherhood Group Mourns Death of Terror Leader

ICNA president Naeem Baig (left), Jamaat-e-Islami leader Ghulam Azam

ICNA president Naeem Baig (left), Jamaat-e-Islami leader Ghulam Azam

By Ryan Mauro:

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is again showing its affection for the radical Jamaat-e-Islami group of Pakistan and Bangladesh, a group that it derived from. ICNA was the first to publicly mourn the death of a Jamaat-e-Islami leader and to defend his record, eliciting harsh criticism from some Muslims online.

Jamaat-e-Islami is essentially a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both are Islamist groups with a history of support for terrorism and who intend to use electoral means to implement Sharia governance. Bangladesh is prosecuting Jamaat-e-Islami leaders for war crimes committed during the country’s 1971 war for independence from Pakistan.

ICNA portrays itself as moderate and its leadership has said that it has “no relations—no links to any organization or any country outside the United States.” The Clarion Project’s profile of ICNA documents its extremism, including its Jamaat-e-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood affiliations.

ICNA’s quest to downplay its links to Jamaat-e-Islami is undermined by its own October 23 press release.

It mourns the death of Ghulam Azam, who led the Jamaat-e-Islami party in Bangladesh from 1991 to 2000. He was in prison after being convicted by a Bangladeshi tribunal on 61 war crimes charges.

Azam was the Ameer of  the East Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami during Bangladesh’s war for independence from Pakistan in 1971. He is accused of working with the Pakistani military in its offensives that killed an estimated 3 million people and resulted in the rapes of about a quarter-million women, according to various press accounts.

The Daily Star recounts his role in the atrocities as the Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing formed pro-Pakistan militias. Its account includes a picture of Azam with Pakistani general known as “Butcher of Baluchistan.”

Read more at Clarion Project

U.S. Judge Shields Palestinian Terrorists from Scrutiny

Palestinian Territories: Fateh Delegation Arrives In Gaza To Meet Hamas Leadersby Adam Kredo
Washington Free Beacon
October 29, 2014

Reporters are taking legal action to force a U.S. District Court to publicly disclose secret documents that are believed to provide new details about payments made to terrorists by the Palestinian government, according to court documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Lawyers have been fighting for months to force a U.S. District Court in New York to unseal scores of documents and testimony that allegedly detail how the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has been paying salaries to convicted terrorists.

The sealed documents were submitted to the court as part of a 2004 lawsuit brought by terrorism victims seeking damages from the PLO as a result of their attacks on Israel.

The victims’ lawyers have argued for months that the documents in question play a critical role in establishing the PLO’s culpability and should be released to the public.

However, Judge George B. Daniels has rejected this request on the basis that the documents may reveal personal information about purported terrorists and potentially “undermine” the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) interests, according to court documents.

As the case drags on, several reporters filed a motion on Monday to intervene in the case and force the court to unseal the sealed documents.

Investigative reporters Sharyl Attkisson, Steve Emerson, and Edwin Black jointly filed the motion announcing their intent to pursue intervention in the case with a motion meant to compel the “unsealing [of] certain judicial documents,” according to court documents obtained by the Free Beacon.

Atkinson is a former CBS reporter who has said she faced a backlash from the Obama administration for her stories, Emerson is an author and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), and Black is an author and columnist known for his exposés on Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

The reporters assert in multiple briefs that the public has a right to see the court documents detailing the Palestinian government’s alleged financial support of terrorists.

“We’re confident that the court will take this motion very seriously because it’s based on well-established constitutional law,” Ronald Coleman, a lawyer representing the reporters told the Free Beacon on Tuesday. “The legal standards mandating public access to public judicial proceedings are applied strictly in matters of public concern. And this litigation is certainly such a case.”

Read more

Brookings Takes Both Sides of the Issue on Islamist Censorship

Part 3 of a 4-Part Investigative Series: Brookings Sells Soul to Qatar’s Terror Agenda

by Steven Emerson, John Rossomando and Dave Yonkman
IPT News
October 30, 2014

1081Brookings’ partnership with the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in conjunction with its Qatari-backed Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, sends a mixed message for a think tank that claims to want “a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.”

The OIC is a 57-government body (56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority) that constitutes the largest United Nations voting bloc.

Fighting against criticism of Islam and those who link the religion with violence under the banner of so-called “Islamophobia” features prominently in the OIC’s rhetoric and diplomacy.

“Freedom of expression … cannot be used as a pretext for inciting hatred … or insulting the deeply held beliefs of any community. It should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions,” OIC’s “Seventh Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2013-April 2014″ states.

Islamophobia under OIC’s definition even covers court-proven facts such as the use of zakat (charity) payments to fund terror, evidenced by the international body’s attack on FBI training materials that describes it as a “funding mechanism for combat.”

Zakat is the tithe Muslims must pay as a pillar of their faith. It may be spent on feeding the hungry or caring for the sick, but also for funding violent jihad. Muslim authors suchas Sheik Muhammad Ali Hashimi, a well-known author in the Arab world, teach that funding “jihad for the sake of Allah” is the most important use for zakat.

Court documents and classified State Department cables demonstrate that numerous charities such as Qatar Charity (formerly the Qatar Charitable Society), the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and countless others have diverted zakat collections to benefit terror groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas. A 2012 UN Security Council report notes that the Taliban uses zakat collected from areas it controls to finance its operations.

Instead of unequivocally and unconditionally defending free speech, Brookings sends mixed messages, with some experts endorsing the OIC’s effort on Islamophobia and others condemning its excesses.

Brookings scholar Ahmet T. Kuru argued following the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, that Muslims need “mechanisms and institutions” to prevent the dissemination of “anti-Islamic propaganda.” In this case, Kuru implicitly referred to the “Innocence of Muslims” video that the Obama administration and others blamed for triggering the attack.

“The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has taken some important steps forward in promoting respectful, civilized and effective ways of fighting Islamophobia. Their diplomatic attitudes, however, have yet to spread at the grassroots level,” Kuru wrote, contrasting the OIC’s efforts with those of violent Muslim protesters. “The recent incident also shows how counterproductive Islamophobia is. There are politicians and religious leaders in the United States and Europe who, unfortunately, promote Islamophobia.

“Western countries need to develop effective mechanisms and institutions to marginalize Islamophobes; that will be consistent with their principle of working against discrimination, as well as serving their interests in different parts of the world.”

Other Brookings scholars reflect this line of reasoning about the threat from Islamophobia and their perspectives similarly align with many of the OIC’s complaints.

A few years earlier, in a June 2007 article, former Brookings scholar Peter Singer cited former U.S. diplomat William Fisher, saying that “an unreasoning and uninformed Islamophobia” served as a new prejudice that threatened to undermine U.S. foreign policy and that it was rapidly becoming “implanted in our national genetics.”

Brookings scholar David Benjamin extended this line of reasoning in an Oct. 7, 2008 paper, stating that Islamophobia driven by “the religious right and talk radio” had undermined the integration of Muslims into American society. He claimed this compounded the effects with “dubious prosecutions.”

“Officials should denounce incidents of anti-Muslim sentiment quickly and vigorously,” Benjamin wrote.

The OIC’s diplomatic efforts against so-called Islamophobia have included applying pressure to governments and international bodies to criminalize free speech.

OIC’s war on free speech

Brookings invited then-OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to speak at its annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum in 2006, 2011, 2012 and 2013 in Doha. The conferences drew intellectuals and policymakers from the United States and across the Muslim world, and serve as a major part of Brookings’ Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World.

Ihsanoglu’s organization for years has lobbied the European Union and the United Nations to outlaw criticism of Islam.

Read more

CAIR publishes list of American ‘Islamophobes’ — Will it become a ‘hit list’ for Islamic State ‘lone wolves’?

cair-isis

There is a growing concern that converts to Islam in America and Canada are ready, ideologically willing and certainly able to conduct individual attacks against soldiers, police and innocent civilians. This week the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has called for increased security at some federal buildings. The Associated Press reports:

Security will be increased at various federal government buildings in Washington and other major American cities, the Homeland Security Department announced Tuesday in what it described as a “precautionary step.” The move came one week after a gunman in Ottawa fatally shot a soldier as he stood as a ceremonial guard at Ottawa’s National War Memorial, then stormed the Parliament building. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the shooting a terrorist attack.

As Mohammedans wage jihad against U.S. and Canadian citizens, in the name of Allah, the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has published a list of American individuals and organizations it considers to be “Islamophobic.” The new CAIR website is Islamophobia.org.

The purpose of the CAIR website is, “[T]o monitor and challenge the growing anti-Muslim bigotry in American society. CAIR’s Islamophobia.org site presents detailed profiles of a number of individuals and institutions involved in the American Islamophobia network.” CAIR is characterize by some as a “moderate” Islamic organization. An anonymous quote on the internet states:

A radical Muslim wants to behead you. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to behead you.

On the list are Floridians Allen West, Guy Rogers, USF Professor Jonathan Matusitz, Dr. Rich Swier, Sam Kharoba and Tom Trento. The Islamic State has called for attacks against the United States targeting those who defame Mohammed. Are these men, women and organizations on the CAIR list designed to evoke the deadly passions of those who have joined the Islamic State in the U.S.?

Question: Will the Islamic State use the CAIR list of Islamophobes to attack these individuals?

Those individuals and organizations listed by CAIR as Islamophobic include:

soin logo

Ali Sina A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations, Sina believes, “there is NOTHING good in Islam and that it is all evil.”

Allen West A former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Allen believes, ” Islam does not coexist.”

Anders Gravers A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations who also heads Stop Islamization of Europe.

Ann Coulter A conservative commentator who suggested that “we should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

Ashraf Rameleh A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. When speaking about the September 11th attacks he said “they are not terrorists, they are jihad. They are for the Quran.”

Babu Suseelani a member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. In 2012 Suseelan told an audience “If we do not kill the bacteria, the bacteria will kill us. Muslims will breed like rats and they will be a majority.”

bill-maher-overtime-post-show2Bill Maher Bill Maher hosts a political satire program, Real Time with Bill Maher, on HBO. Despite his claim to hold progressive opinions, Maher consistently demonizes and stigmatizes the Muslim community.

Brian Kilmeade A Fox News Channel commentator. In June 2013, Kilmeade told a leader of the English Defence League, an anti-Muslim group known for violent protests, “We got your back.”

Brigitte Gabriel The head of Act for America. Gabriel has said, “America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.”

Bryan Fischer The director of issues analysis at the American Family Association. According to Fischer, “Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam.”

Carl Goldberg A member of the Arizona chapter of Act for America. According to an announcement for an October 2013 event, Goldberg can prove that “Islam is not just a religion but also a totalitarian and imperialistic ideology.”

Clare Lopez Lopez is the vice president for issues and analysis at the Center for Security Policy. She also a board member at the Clarion Project. In 2013, Lopez told an audience, “When people in other bona fide religions follow their doctrines they become better people — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews. When Muslims follow their doctrine, they become jihadists.”

Cliff Kincaid A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. In 2013, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups in the United States, listed Kincad among the “30 new activists heading up the radical right.”

Constance Gavras The director of the Illinois chapter of Act for America.

Daniel Pipes The founder and director of the Middle East Forum. Pipes is also connected to the National Review, Clarion Project, and Washington Times. Pipes is the grandfather of Islamophobia in the United States. In 1990 he wrote, “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

Dave Agema A former Michigan state legislator, Agema now represents his state as a national committeeman of the Republican National Committee. In early 2014, Agema made anti-Muslim comments on his Facebook account: “Have you ever seen a Muslim do anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?

David Horowitz The founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that tracks hate in the United States, names Horowitz “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”

David Yerushalmi A co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center and employee of the Center for Security Policy. Yerushalmi beleives, “Our greatest enemy today is Islam.”

Debbie Anderson The leader of the Minneapolis chapter of ACT for America.

Debbie Robinson A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations. Robinson’s Q Society of Australia asserts, “Islam is not just another religion, but also a totalitarian ideology with a global agenda.”

Dorrie O’Brien O’Brien acts as a national mentor for ACT for America. According to O’Brien “Islam…is a poisoned well.”

Frank Gaffney The founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. Gaffney is also connected to the Washington Times, and Clarion Project. Gaffney has advocated renewing the House Un-American Activities Committee, a discredited McCarthy-era congressional committee that President Truman once described as “the most un-American thing in the country today.”

Glenn Beck Beck hosts the Glenn Beck show on the Blaze. In February, 2011, Beck hosted anti-Muslim speaker Joel Richardson on his Fox News program and the two “tied Islam to the Antichrist in the new testament.”

Guy Rodgers The executive director of ACT for America. In 2010, Rodgers “contended that Muslims should be treated differently because their legal system is inherently flawed.”

James Lafferty Originally known for his work with the Virginia Anti-Shariah Taskforce, Lafferty is now with both the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Jihad Watch.

State Rep. John Bennett of Oklahoma (R-Sallisaw) According to Bennett, Islam is “a cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out.”

John Guandolo The founder of Understanding the Threat. Guandolo is a former FBI agent who trains law enforcement officers to believe in conspiracy theories such as his beleif that CIA Director Brennan is a secret Muslim.

Jonathan Matusitz The membership director for the central Florida chapter of Act for America and a professor at the University of Central Florida. Matusitz claims that Muslims “procreate like mushrooms after the rain” and that “the problem is Islam.”

Kamal Saleem A board member of Former Muslims United. In October 2012, Right Wing Watch posted a video of Saleem and noted that in that video, “Saleem alleged that Obama’s top speech writer and Sasha and Malia’s babysitter are both Islamic fundamentalists that are wielding secret power.”

Kevin Carroll A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations.

Lauren Green An anchor on the Fox News Channel.

Mano Bakh A key individual with the California group Concerned American Citizens. On its website, the group asserts, “The real source of the devastating 9/11 attack is the Islamic Ideology as prescribed in Quran.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) A Minnesota Republican, Bachmann is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In June 2012, Bachmann led a group of House Republicans on a series of five letters to federal inspectors alleging that the Muslim Brotherhood was infiltrating the U.S. government. The allegations primarily centered on an aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and were soundly rejected by Republican leadership.

Mike Huckabee A host on the Fox News Channel and former governor of Arkansas. Huckabee referred to Islam as the “antithesis of the gospel of Christ.” He also seemed to compare Muslim prayer being allowed in a church to the showing of pornographic films.

Nina Cunningham Cunningham serves on the boards of many anti-Islam organizations, including the Center for Security Policy, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and also the Clarion Project.

Nonie Darwish A founder of Former Muslims United. Darwish asserts that “Islam should be fought and should be conquered and defeated and annihilated.”

Oskar Freysinger A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. He played a leading role in the movement to ban Islamic minarets in Switzerland.

Pamela Geller The cautic mouthpiece of the U.S. Islamophobia network, Geller believes, “Hitler was inspired by Islam.”She blogs atAtlas Shrugs and is a leader with the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Jihad Watch, and Stop the Islamization of Nations. Note: Geller also heads Stop Islamization of America, but this entity is identified as an AFDI project.

Rep. Peter King (R-.N.Y.) Peter King represents a district centered in New York’s, Long Island. He served as chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee from 2010-2012. King has maintained that “80%, 85% of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists,” and that average Muslims “are loyal,” but “don’t come forward, they don’t tell the police what they know”. Additionally in 2007, Representative King said, “Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country.”

Richard Swier Swier is the director of the Sarasota, Fla. chapter of ACT for America. (EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Rich Swier has not been the Director of the Sarasota ACT for America chapter for 8 years.)

Rick Joyner Joyner is the president of the Oak Initiative. He is also the founder/director of Morningstar Ministries and the founder/director of Heritage National Ministries. He has authored more than forty books. His book The Harvest lays out some of his views on Islam: “Islamic terrorists will permeate the West with teams that target Christian organizations and leaders. This is in preparation for an Islamic assault upon the entire world. They will compile computer data on every Christian leader who has any kind of extra-local influence (i.e. newsletters, television or radio outreach).

Robert “Raphael” Shore A member of Clarion Project’s board of directors.

Robert Spencer A prolific member of the U.S. Islamophobia network, Spencer runs the Jihad Watch web site and is also connected with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and Stop Islamization of Nations.Spencer has referred to Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a “con man. Someone who is knowing [sic] that what he is saying is false, but is fooling his followers.” In the same video he asserts, “From a historical standpoint, it is not even clear that Muhammad existed.”

Roger Ailes Ailes is the president and CEO of Fox News Channel. According to a source who spoke to Rolling Stone, “He has a personal paranoia about people who are Muslim — which is consistent with the ideology of his network.”

Ryan Mauro Mauro is a staff member at the Clarion Project.

Sam Kharoba Kharoba is the founder of the Counter Terrorism Operations Center. He claims to have trained “over 20,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers. Kharoba has no formal academic degrees in Islamic studies and no experience in law enforcement. His only claim of any qualification is that he has a pre-university level certificate in Arabic culture, but Arabic culture is not Islam; in fact, only 20 percent of the world’s Muslims are Arabs. Upon review, it was found that large sections of Kharoba’s training manual were word-for-word identical to unreliable web-based sources. The investigation found his most common source was Wikipedia.

Scott Saunders Saunders is affilliated with the Virginia Beach, Va. chapter of Act for America.

Shalom Lewis Shalom Lewis is a cleric at the Congregation Etz Chaim synagogue in Marietta, Georgia. Etz Chaim’s website states Lewis “generates a caring warmth”, but his hateful speech about Islam is alarming and barbaric.

Stephanie Reis Reis is the Virginia State Director for Act for America. In 2010, as part of her welcome message for ACT’s Oklahoma chapter, Reis wrote, “The ideology, politics and religion of Islam has one purpose – to bring the world into submission to Islam and under its laws.”

Stephen Coughlin Now a fellow at the Center for Security Policy, Coughlin holds the beleif that belief that Islam “obligates Muslims to use violence in the name of spreading or defending the faith.”

Steven Crowder A Fox News Channel commentator, Crowder alleges “the real problem is the Quran.”

Steven Emerson The founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Upon reviewing a book he wrote, the New York Times determined that Emerson has “an unfamiliarity with the Middle East and a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias”.

Timothy Wildmon The president of the American Family Association, Wildmon has said, “[Islam] is, in fact, a religion of war, violence, intolerance, and physical persecution of non-Muslims.”

Tommy Robinson A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of America. Founder of the English Defence League (EDL), Robinson was jailed in 2013 for “having entered the United States illegally using someone else’s passport” and again in 2014 for mortgage fraud.

Tom Trento Trento is the founder and director of The United West. He believes mosques exist to wage a “cultural jihad” against America.

Usama Dakdok According to the web site of Dakdok’s Straight Way of Grace Ministry one of the group’s goals is to “expose Islam for what it is, and yes it is worse than a cancer, and this can be shown clearly in the reading of the Qur’an and theHadith.”

Wafa Sultan Sultan is connected to both Former Muslims United and Stop Islamization of Nations. She says, “I don`t see any difference between radical Islam and regular Islam…You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time.”

Walid Shoebat The founder of the Forum for Middle East Understanding, Shoebat is the author of “The case for Islamophobia,’ a book published in March 2013. Shoebat’s training and speaking events are promoted using his credentials and his “background” as a former PLO terrorist who converted to Christianity. In 2011, CNN researchers “found no evidence” to support Shoebat’s trademark claim of being a “former PLO terrorist.”

Former Lieutenant General William Boykin A board member of the Oak Initiative. Boykin asserts that “[Islam] should not be protected under the First Amendment,” that there should be “no mosques in America,” that Islam is a “totalitarian way of life,” and that there can be no interfaith dialogue or cooperation between Muslims and Christians.

Zuhdi Jasser Jasser is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a board member of the Clarion Project Under Jasser’s leadership, AIFD is embedded with groups that are dedicated to spreading false information, fear, and distrust of Islam and Muslims.

Frat-House Statecraft and U.S.-Iran Détente

Commentary Magazine, By Seth Mandel, Oct.29, 2014:

The silliness of President Mom Jeans calling an Israeli special forces veteran “chickens–t” was what first dominated the reactions of the Obama administration’s frat-house taunts directed at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. But the larger strategic impact of the insult, as passed through what Matthew Continetti has termed the “secretarial” press, this time via Jeffrey Goldberg, soon became apparent. And it has now been confirmed by a major story in theWall Street Journal.

It was easy at first to miss anything but the string of insults directed from Obama to Netanyahu, including the casual accusation of autism. (It’s arguable whether this represented a new low for the president, who has a habit of demonstrating his grade school playground vocabulary.) But once the initial shock at the further degrading of American statecraft under Obama wore off, it was easy to see the real purpose of the story. The Obama administration wanted to brag through its stenographer that the president had protected the Iranian nuclear program from Israel:

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

If Iran goes nuclear, those words will be the perfect description of the Obama administration’s fecklessness: “Now it’s too late.” Too late, that is, for our allies like Israel and the Gulf states to protect themselves from the consequences of the Obama administration’s Mideast policies–which principally affect Israel and the Gulf states. But “fecklessness” may not be the right word. The Wall Street Journal reports today that the president has been effective after all:

The Obama administration and Iran, engaged in direct nuclear negotiations and facing a common threat from Islamic State militants, have moved into an effective state of détente over the past year, according to senior U.S. and Arab officials.

The shift could drastically alter the balance of power in the region, and risks alienating key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates who are central to the coalition fighting Islamic State. Sunni Arab leaders view the threat posed by Shiite Iran as equal to or greater than that posed by the Sunni radical group Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Israel contends the U.S. has weakened the terms of its negotiations with Iran and played down Tehran’s destabilizing role in the region.

The Obama administration, then, has been carrying out its preferred policy: aligning with Iran in the Middle East. Now, this isn’t exactly surprising, since the administration has more or less telegraphed its pitches. Obama has also long been a doormat for the world’s tyrants, so adding Iran to the list that already includes states like Russia and Turkey adds a certain cohesiveness to White House policy.

Obama’s infamous and towering ignorance of world affairs, especially in the Middle East, has always made this latest faceplant somewhat predictable. The Looney-Tunes outburst at Netanyahu was not, but it teaches us two important things about Obama.

First, those who wanted to support Obama but had no real case for him in 2008 went with the idea that he had a “presidential temperament.” Those folks now look quite foolish–though that’s nothing new. Obama has a temperament ill suited for any activity not readily found on frat row.

The second lesson is that the president’s foreign policy is not abandonment of allies–that would be an improvement. It is, instead, full of tactics and strategies that, often unintentionally but no less destructively, put a thumb on the scale against them. For example, from the Journal piece:

The Obama administration also has markedly softened its confrontational stance toward Iran’s most important nonstate allies, the Palestinian militant group Hamas and the Lebanese militant and political organization, Hezbollah. American diplomats, including Secretary of State John Kerry, negotiated with Hamas leaders through Turkish and Qatari intermediaries during cease-fire talks in July that were aimed at ending the Palestinian group’s rocket attacks on Israel, according to senior U.S. officials.

The Iranian proxy terrorist groups on Israel’s border will have a freer hand. It helps explain why the administration served up a ceasefire proposal crafted by Hamas’s patrons, which outraged not only Israel but also Egypt. Protecting Hezbollah will further enable that group to make life hell for Israel’s north (and perhaps not onlyIsrael’s north) when they next feel like it.

But strengthening Hezbollah will not only imperil Israel’s security. It will also put Europe in greater danger and U.S. interests as well. It’s a dim-witted policy, in other words, no matter what you think of Israel. And the general détente with Iran is, as theJournal points out, an insult to our Gulf allies as well as damaging to the fight against ISIS. The president’s policies put our allies at the mercy of their enemies. That he’s taunting them too only makes it clear that the policies are being instituted precisely how he envisioned them.

Also see:

Documentary: Obama Admin ‘Warned by Everybody’ about Islamic State but ‘Did Almost Nothing’

BY:
October 29, 2014 

On Tuesday evening, PBS’s Frontline aired the new documentary “The Rise of ISIS”, which detailed its investigation into the “miscalculations and mistakes behind the brutal rise of ISIS”.

The documentary included interviews with key Obama administration officials and experts.

Frontline’s Ken Pollak interviewed the Former American Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey who revealed, “The administration not only was warned by everybody back in January, it actually announced that it was going to intensify its support against ISIS with the Iraqi armed forces. And it did almost nothing.”

**********

The Rise of ISIS – FRONTLINE – PBS (internationalterrorismstudyproject.com)

An Islamic State (ISIS) black flag flies near the Syrian town of Kobani, as seen from the Turkish-Syrian border. (Kutluhan Cucel / Getty Images)

On October 28th, 2014 PBS aired “The Rise of ISIS” as the latest installment of their award winning FRONTLINE television program.  Martin Smith reporting, walks us through the how and why of the current state of the Middle East under the influence of ISIS.

Vivid and sometimes violent imagery is the backdrop as several reporters, analysts, and American officials are interviewed, giving the viewer an excellent background of ISIS and how they have quickly risen to power.  They point out that unlike many other terrorist organizations, ISIS does not attack and flee.  They attack, seize assets and hold territory as they please.  FRONTLINE acknowledges ISIS is in part, a byproduct of past United States policies. Notably, only Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor speaks in defense of the current US administration.  Many ousted political figures are also interviewed during this hour long program however ex Iraqi PM Maliki is not among them.  Below is the link for the PBS’s webpage for this program.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/